During his restoring honor speech last Saturday, Glenn Beck used an old deception of his, a rewritten quotation from Thomas Jefferson, and a new fabrication about why the Washington Monument is "scarred." Normally, "little" deceptions like these are just another day on the job for Mr. Beck, but on what Beck has now called a "world stage," after calling on his listeners in front of him and where ever people heard him to "tell the truth" no fewer than six times, these made up facts are nothing short of cynical hypocrisy of our period's self-assigned, messenger of God.

Previously, this Review has offered Beck two Fox News shows to correct his intentional or accidental deceptions and demonstrate credibility as a media representation of a reactionary (Tea Party) movement. After Monday's and Tuesday's episodes, during which Beck talked about nothing but how the media got it wrong about how the event would go down, and how wonderful the whole day was for his audience, the country and Glenn Beck, nary a word of correction was uttered about his two historical fabrications.

The misquote of Thomas Jefferson comes originally from Beck's book, The Real America, where Beck claimed that Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, wrote "Question the very existence of God, for if there be a God, He must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear." What Jefferson actually wrote in that letter was, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

During his speech on 8-28, Beck used this self-modified quote again: "If you haven't, as Thomas Jefferson said, 'Question with boldness even the very existence of God, for if there be a God, He must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear." "More approv[ing] the homage of reason" is not "surely rather honest questioning." This notion of Beck's "honest questioning" has been dismissed by this Reviewpreviously as "unintelligible," but more reflection upon the idea of what other types of questioning someone might engage in led to the simple opposite: dishonest questioning.

An example of dishonest questioning would be Mr. Beck asking about why the Communist, Van Jones, was working in the Obama Administration. It's a dishonest question because at that time, Van Jones was no more a Communist than Glenn Beck was a lush. The honest question would have been why there is an ex-Communist working in the White House, but Beck never asked that. That was then, and the very dishonest questioning of Mr. Beck makes the need for him to insert the phrase "honest questioning" into this quotation by Jefferson all the more puzzling. Why would he invite researchers to follow this odd phrase from the misquotation to one more example of hypocrisy on Beck's part? That's an honest question about Beck's method of communication.

This misquote could be ignorance (Beck uses ghost writers), or it could be intentional. Either way, using this distorted quote during a speech stressing truth and honor was not just disingenuous, it's Beck being Beck: one more shade of hypocrisy.

Beck's story about how the Washington Monument got "scarred" was also made up. Beck said, "A quarter of the way up, it changes color...How did the scar get there? They stopped building it in the Civil War." Construction wasn't stopped because of the Civil War as Beck claimed. According to "History and facts about the Washington Monument:"

As the work began, the obelisk gradually began to ascend towards the sky. To aid in the process of building the monument, the Society invited civic groups, nationalities, states, and private organizations to donate commemorative stones to be placed in the interior walls surrounding the stairwell. However, due to increasing instances of vandalism and theft, the contributions eventually ceased in 1854, when the monument was only 152 feet tall.

The Civil War did not start until 1861. This is another deception from someone who deems himself informed about history; another shade of hypocrisy.

This Reviewpreviously posited that Beck's story about Captain Newman's changed life could have been an indication that Beck was turning a new leaf toward honesty, truth, integrity and honor, but if Beck wasn't truthful even during this "world-wide speech," then apparently nothing has changed. "Captain Newton" is still piloting a slave ship meaning that Glenn Beck is still a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan, or more precisely these days, a false prophet.

Maybe, henceforth, Beck will stick with the truth. That's highly unlikely because he knows his followers don't care or notice that he deceives them. Why should they? After all, Glenn Beck is a man of God leading the country in a new direction: backward toward the 19th Century.

Update 9/01/10: Make that three deceptions, but this one ranks as a bald faced lie. As noted, Beck's misquoting of Jefferson may have been a consequence of ignorance if Beck had a ghost writer for his book. The second lie about the Washington Monument may have been a leap of imagination on Beck's part, a white lie. Investigation has now revealed that Beck's claim to have held Washington's inaugural address in his hands was a flat out lie. According to Susan Cooper, spokeswoman for the National Archive, "Those kinds of treasures are only handled by specially trained archival staff." (1)

There is no excuse any supporter can offer to rationalize the sheer and naked hypocrisy of making that claim, which he had to know to be false, in a speech proposing to reclaim honor. The Review has documented many of Beck's false claims and examples of hypocrisy over the last four months. However, the hypocrisy of this lie, in this nationally staged setting, after Beck's repeated insistence in truth and honesty in a speech about honor, God and country, takes first place in terms of obviousness and, in what would have been in the moral order this blogger grew up in, completely disgraceful. For any politician this kind of bold-faced lie would be remembered at election time. Because "brother" Beck has elevated himself from "rodeo clown" to the position of messenger of God, he will -- because of the emotional bond he has built up with his supporters over the years -- be forgiven by his flock.

However, Glenn Beck cannot restore even his own honor because Beck, a recently self-described "recovering dirtbag" with many lies and hypocrisies documented over just the last four months, never had any honor to begin with. He can't even use his moment in the spotlight, his grand rally, which is supposed to, according to Mr. Beck, begin a new direction for America to move, to stop acting like the slave ship version of Captain Newton. In other words, in terms of the three criticisms of The Glenn Beck Review - that Beck is a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan - August 28 was just another day on the job. He makes this deceitful claim, that he's telling the truth, all the time.

116 comments:

Anonymous
said...

The author of "Amazing Grace" is John Newton, not Newman so you don't even have your facts right.

And there are multiple sources that state the construction of the Washington Monument was halted because of the Civil War. Yes, the battle at Ft. Sumter technically began the war in 1861, but the Civil War did not start with a shot. The succession movement was alive and well in the 1850s. The Lincoln Douglas debates were in 1858. Lincoln gave his famous "House Divided" speech in 1858. So it is you who needs to get his facts straight.

As for the "misquote" on Thomas Jefferson, I think Glenn's meaning is clear. You may not agree with his paraphrase but it is hardly an attempt at deception.

And as to Van Jones not being a communist...well his own words "give them the wealth" are pretty self explanatory.

So I ask you...why the hate? There was nothing wrong with what Glenn did Saturday. He rallied the troops peacefully. His message to turn back to God is a valid one. Is Glenn Beck perfect? No of course not. But your pitiful attempt to stop what he is doing is just silly. Its attack the messenger because you cannot attack the message.

I'm glad you brought these issues out because, I was wondering what in the world he was talking about concerning the monument.

I had heard that the Capital construction ceased during the Civil War but never had heard anything about the monument. He keeps repeating this crap on his show too.

As for the misquote of Jefferson, he does not want his audience to know that Jefferson was a deist and was NOT a man of the Christian faith, period. Just by replacing those two words, he can fool folks into thinking that Jefferson was saying something totally different.

He is in cahoots with Barton to make it seem like all of the founders were devout Christians, including Jefferson and Washington, who never even took communion when he went to church.

Good job and let's see if Beck corrects the "mistakes" he made.

Certainly someone in the audience knew that the monument deal was not what happened and it was the Capital that had "scars" from the war?? I would think so anyway but, one never knows.

Anonymous, I have it as Newton under Beck's picture. Thank you for correcting the error. I wrote this late last night and did not catch it.

Those sources are wrong. It was halted years before the Civil War started, and the story is actually more interesting than I have it conveyed here. I haven't independently verified this yet, so for now it stands as posted.

Beck didn't "paraphrase" Jefferson; he put words in his pen, in his book, on his show and in his speech about honor. He deceived you, and you need to rationalize this deception.

I don't hate Beck. Read "About the blogger."

I don't care about Beck's message. I am pointing out that Beck lies, hypocritically lies. What you think is "silly" is repulsive to those with a background in ethics. Deceit and hypocrisy is not "silly:" it's the way of Beck.

I didn't miss the whole point of the rally. It was about restoring honor let by a man who has yet to find enough honor to tell simple historical facts accurately. Purposely misquoting Jefferson, my favorite founding father; and putting dumb words in his name, is an insult to his audience's intelligence.

George Bush was OUR president, and President Obama is OUR president. I'll put the "lies" of President Obama up against either the line of bulldung that's been coming out of Beck's mouth for the last five months or against the whoppers Pres. Bush told to get us into the war in Iraq any day.

I feel free to "go after" Beck all the time because we live in a free country. I don't need your permission, nor do I seek it. Just as you're free to criticize Obama; so too am I free to criticize Mr. Beck. When it comes to honor, Mr. Beck is not in the same league as President Obama; but you wouldn't understand that because you've been listening to a gifted rodeo clown who makes up a far right narrative that often varies wildly from the facts.

FYI, I've criticized Obama in this blog, basically for being a centrist on foreign policy and crossing a Constitutional line for targeting an American for assassination. Beck was over 6 months behind that story.

Don't name call; it reflects poorly on your master. Maybe you should get down on your knees and pray on that.

You're splitting hairs and "tergiversating". Whether or not you're right about the subtleties of the Jefferson quote, the history of the W Monument, or Newton you've failed to make any kind of coherent argument. And, the points you've tried to make don't demonstrate that there is any motivation for Beck to lie about any of these things. There's nothing for him to gain. Saying the W monument was or wasn't delayed because of vandals, congress, or the war doesn't really add or take away from Beck's message. As far as Van Jones, if you endorse a basic communist principle despite the fact you claim to be a capitalist - you're going to classified a communist. That's the whole actions speak louder than words idea.

In addition, for someone as well educated as you claim to be by virtue of your curriculum vitae listed on your Facebook page, this post was poorly written. Many of your sentences are run on. You jump from point to point without justifying any of your claims with substantial evidence or tying together the ideas in your paragraphs. If you're going to post this type of critique you should try to format and revise it well enough for anyone to read. I've studied a great deal of logic, philosophy, and rhetoric as well as attended courses at one of the few diplomacy schools in America. The character of your writing is "jejune" and "petulant".

I understand if you posted this in the late evening that you may have made some mistakes. I am willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt. However, if this is exemplary of your typical content you'll never be taken seriously.

Of all the things you could take issue with on Beck, a misquote and a minor discrepancy over the history of the construction of a building don't make for very compelling discussion. You're embarrassing us.

These "lies" that you are pointing out are immaterial. The date that construction halted, regardless of which historian is quoted, happened and that is a agreed upon by both stories. I wasn't there so I can't tell you which version is more accurate.

As for the quote in both versions the message is clear. I know personally that if you seek God with an honest heart, he reveals his existence to you.

My neighbor used to have a sign in her flowerbed that stated "Don't miss the flowers worrying about the weeds." I'm glad that you have a forum to expound om some of the things that Glenn misses. Multiple perspectives help keep all of us in line.

If that is the best you can come up with on Glenn Beck you need to give it up, Why don't you put the same energy and scrutiny on Obama there is a thousand feasts worth of lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and deceptions on him. Basically every time he opens his mouth lie after lie comes out. I don't think he is capable of telling any thing that even resembles the truth or of any level of sincerity. As for Glenn Beck I will judge him by the quality of his listeners and how diligent and wise his facts are presented and researched. I have listened to him for years have watched his predictions come true time and time again. He has stood the test of time and keeps getting better and better.

He is a true historical figure and one who I truly believe is doing his very best to serve God and part of his mission he believes is to wake up America and be an instrument in turning her back to God and in that I believe he is a good and faithful servant.

Anonymous, Beck doesn't need a motivation for lying other than to convey sincerity. Ironic, huh?

And now of course we have found that Beck lied about three things. You're right; he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. So long as his followers continue to turn a blind eye toward Beck's ongoing assault on the truth, he's keep profiting from your blindness.

It's ironic that you can offer harsh criticism of my writing, but you can't see that day after day after day Glenn Beck lies to you, tells you that he's telling you the truth and thus displayed naked hypocrisy...only you can't see it in him.

Beck's third lie, that I added after the purposeful misquote he's been using for years and the "minor" lie about the Washington Monument, is a whopper. Come back here and rationalize that one.

Anonymous, Beck lied to you three times: a white lie, a lie of historical error (shouldn't a history "teacher" get his facts right?) and now this WHOPPER about holding Washington's address to the nation in his hands.

Fact is, followers of Beck do not care that he lies to you. Beck's "truthiness" feels right to you, and that's all you care about, facts be damned.

Beck is a "true historical figure." He's truly doing his level best to deceive you into believing things that are NOT BASED IN FACT.

I point out these three lies because of the content of his speech about supposed "honor." Glenn Beck is a raging hypocrite, but his followers have been so blinded and misinformed by him that they (you) just cannot see it.

Victor,You've taken to much liberal license with my post. I never said I believed Beck. I only stated that your arguments and writing were at fault, yet you’ve implied that I, along with anyone else who challenges you, am blind. I never claimed to disagree with you. I only pointed out the flaws in your arguments made your arguments irrelevant.

Your point about Beck using lies to convey sincerity is pure conjecture without any support and unmistakably wrong. You’ve used the concept of sincerity improperly and you are using badly formulated ideas, which is why I criticized you for not tying together your points. I think you’re a little too worked up and angry to actually grasp what's being discussed.

To convey sincerity, one does not deliberately lie about facts. Sincerity is about emotion. It's not a word used in discussions of factual or logical merit. Words such as cogent, sound, and supportive describe the way someone would show legitimacy to their statements and arguments. Sincerity is a quality attributed to a person's commitment to an idea or belief. In this case you’re simply getting the meaning wrong. If you were to try and critique Beck's attempts to make people believe he's sincere you should target something like his perpetual crying or constant claims of personal prayer. These behaviors are either demonstrative of sincerity or an act. Stating facts incorrectly like the monument history, Jefferson's quote, or calling someone a communist because they act like a communist and have a history of participating in communist organizations isn't a demonstration of sincerity. They are claims which are either correct or incorrect. This part of your response is way off mark because you've gone too far with your assessment of Beck's motive and redressed it in a diabolical light, but there's nothing there to substantiate the claim.

On your second point, you've made another egregious error. I stated Beck had nothing to gain or lose for making these statements either deliberately or accidentally. You responded with the idea his only option was to lose, not gain. The points in question will not destroy Beck's credibility with his audience because these points do not matter to them or in the grand scheme. The audience doesn't care about the monument's subtle history. It is a symbol of American pride. It's an irrelevant point that wouldn't hurt Beck unless it was material to the message – and it’s not. Beck's audience agrees with Beck about Van Jones because Van Jones made the statements on camera, not Beck. He didn't have to tie it together for anyone. And Jefferson’s quote means the same thing. The audience doesn’t care about the subtle change in the language because they both mean the same thing. In fact, if you were to parse out the difference between the two statements you would find that the original statement is a postulation demarking Jefferson’s hunch that God would be reasonable instead of unreasonable. Beck’s restatement is more of an assertion God would be reasonable instead of unreasonable. Either way you split it up, both versions are guessing that God prefers reason to that of the absence of reason. These are concepts evident to these people because there is precedence in the Bible for this opinion. However, your own reprinting of the “actual” statement versus the “Beck” statement is different. In one instance you printed

You still haven't responded to why you don't address the many lies of Obama. Really, the left is just the most hateful group of hypocrites. It amazes me how the media says nothing if a liberal says or does something controversial but if the right says or does the same thing, watch out.

I have heard these same types of arguements from many people claiming the Bible to be false. The fact of the matter is that God uses imperfect men to move His work forward. I am not saying Glenn is a prophet. I am simply pointing out that Glenn is imperfect, and that you have no clue as to the intentions of his heart. You say you do not hate him yet I have never seen one try to pick at anothers imperfections so relentlessly. All in all my viewing this site strengthened my trust in what Glenn is trying to accomplish and solidified my reasoning to ignore your comments.

Anonymous, you brave soul, I am becoming convinced that Beck has turned in this hyper-religious direction in order to better suit his audience. That you have a problem with facts in not my concern. All your comment accomplished was to strengthen my resolve to fight against the belief-over-science, faith-based minority of this nation that enlightened men assembled on all of our behaves. Beck and David Barton want to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

Your trust in Glenn only adds to my concern for this deceitful hypocrite. "Nothing but the truth" my ass! He does, I'm sure, appreciate your business.

Why was Beck's desire of Beck to remove the hate surprising, other than he tends to stir up so much of it for the opponents that he doesn't agree with?

Read about the blogger. I don't hate Beck. He is the perfect straw man, and I'm grateful that he's pulled me away from TV entertainment to engage his lies, hypocrisy and utter lack of qualifications for his show on Fox and his rally. He's too small for his britches. I'm going to miss watching my Knicks and Nuggets this year.

Anonymous, the only change you got was the "miracle" in Beck's word, that he lived up to his word and made Restoring Honor about something other than politics.

What Beck offered on Saturday was more deceit and hypocrisy. SOS; DD. It was entertaining. He's a gifted entertainer, and he has millions convinced that he's honest. I'm impressed, but not positively. His audience behaved themselves. That wasn't exactly news.

Beck is a religious wing nut; that's not news. Beck wants to take this country backward 100+ years; you need to get real.

I'm not addressing the alleged "lies" of Obama because this in not the Barack Obama Review. You get busy and start that blog. When you have your lies all documented, come back here and invite me to critique it. Beckology has peaked for now, so I may have the time to read what you argue.

Anonymous above wrote, "To convey sincerity, one does not deliberately lie about facts. Sincerity is about emotion. It's not a word used in discussions of factual or logical merit."

That's called truthiness. Read the book entitled True Enough; it's covered in there.

In my post, it's clear that I was wrong when I argued, "There is no excuse any supporter can offer to rationalize the sheer and naked hypocrisy of making that claim, which he had to know to be false, in a speech proposing to reclaim honor. I am impressed with Beck's supporter's amazing facilities to rationalize Beck's flagrant hypocrisy.

Wow; this is going to be tougher than I even imagined when I set out to expose Beck for what he is. Beck's loyal followers are immune to enlightenment. Good thing I enjoy a challenge.

Anonymous way up, Beck didn't say he was a prophet. He's turned in a sharp, faith-based direction, and his next book to be released is tentatively entitled The Plan. To quote Mr. Beck: "two plus two equals four."

Again, you start a blog about your disrespect for the President, only yours I will ignore. I'm sure there's a huge market of such vulgar "criticism."

“What Jefferson actually wrote in that letter was, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.“

And in another instance you printed

“On his Founders Friday show of 6/18/10, Beck and his guest were discussing Thomas Jefferson's famous line, "Question with boldness." The line is from a letter to his nephew, and the whole quote is "Question with boldness even the existence of God. If there is a God, He will respond to reason."

So, which one is it? A little consistency here would go a long way. This is only one example of how you’ve tergiversated between one version, or topic, to another without actually addressing even the points you brought up yourself.

This appears to be a petulant attempt on your part at making Beck out to be evil when there is no evidence to support it. If you were to state he was incompetent you may have a point. But even then it only serves to prove he's not a good source on the history of the W monument, or on Jefferson, or about whatever. This doesn't make Beck a less compelling motivator.

You also seem quite convinced everyone else is blind and you've got crystal clear vision. Beck resonates with these folks because his message is down to earth. He talks about the basics of faith. And he's asking people to live quality lives with a personal commitment to their beliefs about God and humanity. You keep telling people Beck is a monster by calling him out on these minor issues that don’t matter. It's not going to get any traction if they see you as petty and argumentative. You don't offer an alternative message that somehow trumps Beck's message. These folks believe he is right because they agree with the major points. And remember Beck is a product being consumed by a market. That market is starved for a genuine message of friendship and support. Your message is very vitriolic.

You also made statements about Beck’s profitability because of my support. How do you know I contribute in any way? This is an unsupported claim you’ve made - which is consistent with your past behavior. I have yet to demonstrate that I agree, disagree, support, or condemn Beck. I have only critiqued your arguments and writing and offered opinions as to why the people like Beck and why they will not like you. This is why I make the claim that you’ve taken too much liberty with my post.

On to your counter-criticism. Again, you assert that I cannot see the lies Beck says. I never stated I believed Beck. I merely pointed out that you’ve not offered a coherent argument. I also pointed out a few of your writing errors. Where is the justification to claim I support Beck? It appears you may be guilty of telling a few lies yourself. Of course, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these are errors of reason and not nefarious attempts to deceive the public about my motives.

As for your last point, about the merit of the W monument lie and the Jefferson misquote, I’ve already addressed these issues in this reply. There’s no need to critique you further other than to point out that you’ve assessed these points of contention as major concerns. That isn’t really even arguable because your opinion of these items is first incorrect in the case of the quote, and irrelevant in the case of the monument. What about Van Jones? Did Beck somehow exercise his ability to persuade Van Jones? And what about the John Newton thing? If you’re going to respond you should address everything. Again, your writing skills, use of grammar, and critical thinking demonstrate you’re either rushing through these posts, and the content of Beck, or you should seek additional training. I hope it’s contributable to the fact that you’re rushed.

And finally, you shouldn’t have recycled my final comment. It gives the impression your five years old and competing to win the argument by saying “uhnhuh, your stupid.”

Victor,Apparently this is going to go on for a long while. You're digging a deeper hole with each response you post that doesn't address any point I make about your reasoning. You could take a lesson from Beck on this. At least he offers reasons to support his claims, whether they are sound or not. You don’t. A person committed to their ideas, who is committed to their position, would counter any criticism with a rebuttal argument showing support for the position they have been criticized over. But you seem to avoid addressing the criticism of the argument in favor of ad hominem attacks on the critic. Let's get into your last response.In your response to the first part of my reply you stated the following...****Anonymous above wrote, "To convey sincerity, one does not deliberately lie about facts. Sincerity is about emotion. It's not a word used in discussions of factual or logical merit." That's called truthiness. Read the book entitled True Enough; it's covered in there.****What's called truthiness? My definition of the word sincerity? Please clarify what you mean in your reply. This is my issue with your posts. You don’t write with enough clarity or precision to clearly articulate the very ideas you embrace. You leave your audience wondering what the point is – how you got from point A to point B.

If that’s what you mean, and my definition of sincerity is somehow a truth only true to me because I see it differently from the rest of the world, or in contradiction to the norm, I would have to take issue with your ability to grasp the very concept of sincerity. Once again we’ll go over what sincerity means. A sincere apology is an honest apology. An honest apology is one that a person makes if he truly believes he has wronged someone and owes it to them. A sincere debate is one made by someone who believes he is right – but it is not required that he be right for him to be sincere. A sincere argument does not have to be a logical one. A crazy man sincerely believes the sky is falling. Even though that’s untrue it doesn’t make the crazy man a liar, it just makes him wrong. A sincere attempt is one made with a commitment to success despite failure. If my definition of sincerity according to you is an appeal to emotion, which is what I believe you’re really talking about when you say truthiness, I would have to conclude that you’re still confused. So be it, there’s no point in arguing with you over accepted meanings or conventions. You call it what you want and I’ll just continue to point out your misstatements, fallacies and errors ad infinitum.If you believe what I stated about sincerity in my last post is truthiness by your colloquial definition, you simply don’t understand the meaning of sincerity or you’re being deliberately obtuse. I’m not quite sure which it is yet. I might be wrong, but you have not yet countered anything I’ve posted with any relevant comment. This leads me to believe your being obtuse. There not much you can do with someone who is committed to a line of rhetoric versus a framework of logic such as you appear to embrace. First and foremost, the definition and common usage of sincerity can be readily tested. Pointing me to go read a book discussing the predilection of people to think what they want to think is not a sincere effort to get at the truth – an idea you claim to be committed to – or revealing anything new about the world. People are inherently guilty of this by virtue of their human condition. People go to great lengths in their lives to demonstrate their commitment to their ideas and act in certain ways to prove it; to themselves as well as other people. They take communion, proclaim their allegiance to a cause or group, recite vows, buy low fat foods, etc. None of which prove any of the truths associated with the behavior. With all that said, I would love to engage you in discussion, not Manjoo. However, I don’t expect you to respond with anything directly related to this point. You’re tactic is to simply hit and run. Make a statement and never engage in discussion about the veracity of that statement. Talking to you is like talking to Al Sharpton or Lamont Hill – pointless and unproductive.

You said the following about my response:In my post, it's clear that I was wrong when I argued, "There is no excuse any supporter can offer to rationalize the sheer and naked hypocrisy of making that claim, which he had to know to be false, in a speech proposing to reclaim honor. I am impressed with Beck's supporter's amazing facilities to rationalize Beck's flagrant hypocrisy.Wow; this is going to be tougher than I even imagined when I set out to expose Beck for what he is. Beck's loyal followers are immune to enlightenment. Good thing I enjoy a challenge.I have yet to endorse any claim Beck has made. You’ve jumped the gun again and not been reading closely. I didn’t offer an excuse for anything Beck said. Your use of language incorrectly continues to defy my ability to understand what you really mean. I don’t have to be a Beck supporter to point out errors you’ve made in your arguments. If you are going to criticize Beck’s arguments and statements yours will have to be airtight. So far, you may be right about some remote detail, or have a point about a paraphrase, but these items are of insignificant importance. Your critique of Beck is equivalent to an attempt to remove the fly excrement from the Piper nigrum.If you would like to respond in a meaningful way you’ll offer a reasonable explanation why Jefferson’s version is substantially different than Beck’s paraphrase. Or how Beck’s misstatement about the W monument affected the integrity of the rest of his message, and that he deliberately stated a falsehood which provided some type of tangible gain. Or why Van Jones isn’t a communist. All I ask is for proof or at least a reasonable hypothesis. Or we could just continue to exchange pejoratives. The real value here is to allow the people who read your blog to hear another point of view.

I didn't realize that we've developed time travel. How did I miss this news story?

I just love to get ad hominem attacks from people so courageous that they can't use their real names.

I have an "opinion" about Beck's misquoting Jefferson: read the damn letter (from the link above). Beck changed the wording to suit his high school grasp of something he didn't want to face, namely that Jefferson argued that God cherished reason over blind fear. That doesn't fit into the narrative of a fear-monger. THAT's an opinion; that he changed the wording in his book and during that speech is not opinion. It's a fact, and it was not, to use Beck's words, "nothing but the truth." It was a small lie, but a lie nonetheless.

You wrote, "you shouldn’t have recycled my final comment. It gives the impression your five years old and competing to win the argument by saying 'uhnhuh, your stupid.'”

I don't think "everyone else is blind," just the people who don't have skepticism about EVERYTHING Beck says. I would use the phrase gullible ignorance, not blind.

I'd respond to this more, but I get the impression that you're (note grammar) a rather hypocritical apologist for Beck's lies and hypocrisy. Why am I not surprised?

Knowing in your gut and not having the "truth" reflect the actual, real world being described.

My "claims" are supported by extensive documentation: Beck is a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan. I have a novel idea: read this blog beginning to end, and show where any of the described false-claims, lies, etc. are in fact not false or deceitful. It's a challenge that I've laid out before, but no one yet has shown that I or Media Matters or PolitiFact are wrong.

If the hypocrisy of lying, of not telling the whole truth, in THIS speech is not understood, then you're just too emotionally involved with Beck to have any kind of objective understanding of the truth. Beck has you wrapped up in his "crazy-con" POV. It's sad.

Anonymous continued above, "Or why Van Jones isn’t a communist. All I ask is for proof or at least a reasonable hypothesis."

Because Jones departed from Communism years ago. He's an ex-communist just like Beck is a former lush and drug addict. I don't need to prove this unless you come back here and tell me that you don't know how to use Google yourself. I'll find the link if you force me to spend the time, but a little bit of fact-finding on your own would suffice before you comment again.

Anonymous said..."You do understand that referring back to articles you wrote is neither proof nor conformation of fact,..."

Thanks for the keen observation. It's a way to save me from re-writing the same things over and over again in every post. If there is proof in the article linked to, I use it to save time and space. And when I'm pointing to posts that show the facts, it is a confirmation (note spelling) of them. If you can challenge the fact-finding anywhere on The Glenn Beck Review, by all means, take the challenge I've given here. Show where I have something wrong about Beck.

Wow. You're right. You have him this time. Glen Beck is a lying liar! How dare he communicate the exact meaning of the Jefferson quote using today's English so people could understand it more readily. We should also burn the Today's English Version Bible for the same reason. And all re-writes of any historical accounts that have already been written. Because changing things for clarity is a ghastly crime. I also would like to repeal the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No one, NO ONE, should be allowed to speak freely if they disagree with what the current government is telling us. I think it would be awesome if we could go back to the law of the Medes and the Persians which cannot be changed. To the lions with everybody who wants to go "back" to the way things were. We are progressive and should only move forward.

I applaud you, Victor for your work in exposing the Beck machine. Don't give up. Don't give in. Take back the country!

P.S. My name is Paul and I'm only signing this as anonymous because the LAST time I used one of my accounts to openly state (no shame here) my opinions. My progressive friends spammed me mercilessly.

Quote from the site you listed DOES list the Civil War as contributing to the Monument not being completed. “As the work began, the obelisk gradually began to ascend towards the sky. To aid in the process of building the monument, the Society invited civic groups, nationalities, states, and private organizations to donate commemorative stones to be placed in the interior walls surrounding the stairwell. However, due to increasing instances of vandalism and theft, the contributions eventually ceased in 1854, when the monument was only 152 feet tall.Construction would be halted for 20 years. THE ONSET OF THE CIVIL WAR ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE DELAY. (my emphasis) The abandoned memorial was a fitting tribute to a nation divided. The unfinished monument was even seen as an embarrassment during this time.”

Guess you should check the sites you post to make sure they parallel your "facts".

I'll start worrying about Beck's "honesty" when our president and his cronies decide to be honest. The difference is black and white......no pun intended. Maybe I better say the difference is like comparing "apples and oranges" so I'm not accused of being a racist.

Wow! Things are really picking up here. For you folks above who don't realize that Beck is lying about certain things, he lied about a quote that he said was made by George Washington.

This was printed on some shirts for the rally and he showed it on his Fox show as well. It is a total lie and Washington never said anything of the sort. Here it is: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."-- George Washington (questionable)

Now, even David Barton, everyone's favorite "Christian Nation" propagandist, has this on his Wallbuilders website as a questionable quote, hence the parenthesis above around the word "questionable."

Beck knows this but wants folks to think that the founders were devout Christians. The funny thing is, some of his new "catch phrases" he's been using like Divine Providence and others, come straight from a Deist kind of mind set!

Interesting how the word "god" is not ever mentioned in the Constitution but, I digress.

Victor, keep up the good work. To all the Anonymous posters, I used to be a huge Glenn Beck fan and have finally seen the light!! Join me if you dare, LOL!

You’re right. It’s time consuming to research the details and check the facts. I can appreciate your time management challenges when responding to posts. However, this is your blog. You can either defend your claims or leave them unanswered. I recommend an appropriate response because those who are following the conversation will consider your opinions with much more sincerity - truthiness aside - if you give challenges a fair treatment.

On to the discussion…To be fair I went online and used that new fangled Google thingy you spoke of to research Van Jones. And you were right. Politicalfact.org has a lengthily discussion outlining Van Jones’ history. And there is a lot of compelling facts offered about some statements he made advocating “green jobs” are the only way to rescue the economy from the recession and why the communist organization STORM based in San Francisco that he was a leader of from 1995 until 2002 didn’t really match with his goals any longer. But not too many reasons on why communism won’t work and capitalism could be the solution.

Politicalfact.org states in the article located at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-van-jones-avowed-communist/ the following quote from Eliza Strickland:

*****"He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. 'I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,' he said."*****

The only part of the quote which is in Van Jones’ own words is:

*****"I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists - shudder, shudder - who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,"*****

I pulled that last part from the actual article written by Eliza Strickland on November 2 2005, located at http://www.truth-out.org/article/eliza-strickland-the-new-face-environmentalism

**************************************************

PoliticalFact.org also stated – quite objectively I might add - that Van Jones never explicitly states why he is no longer a communist. All of which are interesting points and they all deserve due diligence. We’ll get there.There are some problems worthy of examination that make the classification of Van Jones’ position on capitalism, and his denunciation of communism less than crystal clear. For example, right in the article by Eliza Strickland, and the reprint in the PoliticalFact.org article, Van Jones is quoted as shuddering at the thought of people who are capitalists. The quote goes on to describe these people, who Van Jones shudders at the thought of, “[they] were committed to change the economy and were having more success than his movement.” This doesn’t sound like a person who is at ease with capitalism or capitalists. It does seem to describe someone who has realized that his political/economic nemesis is more successful at achieving the change he desired. The type of change or what they [the capitalists] were committed to which Van Jones is envious of remains to be revealed. But, we’ll get there soon enough.

So you also claim according to your blog site at the url listed below:http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/mormon-perspective-on-glenn-beck-rough.html

*****“ Some see Beck’s tactics as similar to McCarthy’s, especially his propensity to see a socialist or communist bear behind every progressive bush and his “outing” of those he considers socialists and communists. In “Glenn Beck: Joe McCarthy Lives!” Los Angeles Times writer Bill Press sees striking similarities between McCarthy’s 1950s witch hunts and Beck’s activities today. Press cites Beck’s crusade against Van Jones, the man Obama selected as his “Green Czar”: “In 14 episodes of his show, Beck . . . paint[ed] Jones as a dangerous ‘communist-anarchist radical’ heading a vast radical/environ-mental/black nationalist takeover of America from within the Obama White House.” Press adds, “It was a page ripped right out of the book of Commie witch hunter Joseph McCarthy: personal attacks on little-known government officials based on nothing but lies, smears, and innuendo (‘Are you now, or have you ever been . . . ?’)—yet ultimately, just as successful. Within two weeks, Jones was forced to resign.”29*****

And you wrote this in response to my critique at the url listed below: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/during-his-speech-to-restore-honor-beck.html#comments*****“ Anonymous continued above, "Or why Van Jones isn’t a communist. All I ask is for proof or at least a reasonable hypothesis." Because Jones departed from Communism years ago. He's an ex-communist just like Beck is a former lush and drug addict. I don't need to prove this unless you come back here and tell me that you don't know how to use Google yourself. I'll find the link if you force me to spend the time, but a little bit of fact-finding on your own would suffice before you comment again.”*****

And, finally, I read you reference at politicalfact.com where the jury declares Beck’s claim Van Jones is a communist to be barely true. Which at the surface may appear to be “sort” of true.

The following quotes were all taken from the Fox News website at the following url:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/raw-data-van-jones-words/

When Van Jones spoke at the PowerShift09 conference Van Jones said these words:

*****"This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing! [...] And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”*****

What change to the “whole system” is he talking about? He declares right in the speech that it’s beyond solar and to not stop there. He’s advocating to change the “whole system”. He goes on to talk about redistribution of wealth – a classic socialist concept, not a green energy concept. So while in this instance he’s not really saying communist he is saying socialist mixed within an energy discussion. Later in that same speech he starts comparing honey bees to locusts. That sounds like a communist to capitalism comparison to me, but I’ll wait to pass judgment because people tend to not really do to well with adlib analogies even though this one has been used before to tell this story. Let’s just stick these items over in the parking lot for now and if we need them we’ll bring them back later.

And at Berkeley in February 2009:Jones took audience questions in Berkeley, Calif., during a lecture on energy issues.*****Van Jones: "Well, the answer to that is: they're assholes."

Female questioner: I was afraid that that was the answer.

Van Jones: That's a technical, political science term. And -- Barack O -- Barack Obama's not an asshole. So -- now, I will say this: I can be an asshole. And some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity. How's that capitalism working for ya?Female questioner: What?

Van Jones: How's that capitalism working for ya this year?

Female questioner: What?

Van Jones: How is that capitalism working for ya this year?

How’s that capitalism working for ya? How’s that capitalism working for ya this year? Does this sound like the kind of rhetoric that a person committed to capitalism would say? I know you’ve heard the question Sarah Palin posed in one of her speeches “How’s that hopey changey thing working out for ya?” I don’t believe anyone is going to mistake Palin’s sarcasm for support. It’s not quite clear at this point. But let’s put that in the parking lot for now as well with the whole thing about redistribution of wealth and the honey bees.************************************************** And on Uprising Radio in 2008"Gray Capitalism" Uprising Radio, April 2008*****Van Jones; "Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, 'OK now we want reparations for slavery, we want redistribution of all the wealth, and we want to legalize mixed marriages.' If we'd come out with a maximum program the very next day, they'd been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum. 'We just want to integrate these buses.'

"But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."*****

“We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether” and “so the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society." There we go with that transform the whole society thing again. To what? These things don’t sound like a capitalist either. There’s no need to transform the whole society which is already capitalist, right?

Hmmm, so if Van Jones isn’t a communist – he’s an ex-communist to quote your response to me which isn’t a capitalist - and he doesn’t speak like a capitalist, what is he? Is he a socialist (aka a reduced fat communist)? A monarchist? A bicyclist?Well, I don’t think anyone here on this blog ever claimed Van Jones is a capitalist. I’m certainly not going to hunt for that little nugget since I don’t believe anyone thinks he’s a capitalists because he doesn’t seem to sound or act like one. And on that point I will concede if anyone has called him a capitalist. I am not going to spend the time researching a non-relevant point of issue.

So, here’s the rub. Van Jones doesn’t speak like a capitalist, but yet he’s not a communist – anymore, even though no one can tell why he’s no longer a communist. He didn’t start saying “them capitalists got a great thing going on over there that I just never saw before. Yeehaw – where do I sign up?”

So there’s your proof Victor that Van Jones might still be classifiable as a communist. This is why Beck can call him one without being categorically guilty of lying. Beck’s claim may be a little stronger than is warranted, but not outside the realm of reason. If you asked me before what I thought about Van Jones, I would have said he’s a communist. If you asked me now, I’d say he’s very likely to be a communist. Remember, he stepped down from STORM, but no one is required to be a card carrying member of a communist organization to be one.

And also a refined point you may miss if I don’t point it out for you in plain terms. If total control of the economy is attained by the government that’s communism. If partial control, it’s socialism. Van Jones says not to worry about the deficit. He is talking about taking (taxing) profits from rich corporations to pay the debt. He just sees it as a pot of money that ought to up for grabs without consideration to who owns it. It’s community money according to him. There’s the well in the middle of the village. Go over there and take some water. No it doesn’t matter that you didn’t help dig the well. No it doesn’t matter that you don’t help maintain the well. No it doesn’t matter that our society is based upon ownership and labor. Just go take it. That’s socialism bordering on communism. This statement wasn’t back in 1992 when he first realized he wanted to be a part of a communist organization. This was in July of this year.

So, while I’m sure you’ll invoke some type of invective on my research, my anonymity again, or the fact I’ve shown how much Van Jones still appears to be an ideological enigma and not declared him outright to be a communists, you’ve just been granted your request. I have provided enough evidence and feedback on your Beck analysis to demonstrate your claim he is a liar to be less than accurate. Even in the PoliticalFact.org article it states that Beck claims Van Jones is a self-avowed communist and then goes on to say that Van Jones started to be a charismatic cheerleader for green jobs, and that he started to transform his politics and work. Where does it prove he is no longer a communist? Where does it say that Van Jones has renounced communism? It doesn’t. And what’s the opposite of communist? Not communist. But that isn’t said. Anyone can write a book about a topic. But that doesn’t definitively prove they support the ideas in the book such as the ones Van Jones proffered in The Green Collar Economy. Despite the fact that Van Jones has started this green jobs movement, he still speaks like a communist on many occasions. I don’t believe he has really given over to the capitalist idea.In this case your claim that Beck is a liar, based on his evaluation of Van Jones, is unjustified. Classifying Van Jones as a communist because he still talks like a communist, criticizes capitalism, suggests socialist actions on the government, and has never denounced communism in any discernable way, is not an unreasonable assertion. Remember, Van Jones history speaks for itself. His ongoing actions, while not obsequiously anti-capitalist, do show to favor “not-capitalism”, whatever that is supposed to be.

Posting replies in your tiny little 4096 character window is tough when they require so much more. I think I’ll start my own showthisurlontheshowthisurlonglennbeck website to present the counter arguments.

All references documented with url’s in PDFs in the event these web pages are removed.

And to address your remark about anonymity, why does it matter? If I post a comment who I am has no bearing or value to the content of the remark. Personally, I think you would use someone’s identity against them. The way you’ve attacked beck and all of your blog participants lead me to believe you’re not trustworthy. I’ll keep my identity to myself. If you’re going to put yourself out there like this then you better be prepared for criticism. Claiming my integrity is at stake because I choose to stay anonymous is an indicator that you’re starting to get rattled. Attack the critic, not the critique. And mind your language. Isn’t this format supposed to be demonstrative of some sort of intellectual dialogue? Resort to swearing and you’ll lose each and every time on rhetoric even if you do win on facts. You should know this. You also like to throw around the hypocrite label quite often. Since I've shown your accusation of Beck on Van Jones to be less than accurate, you've just joined the ranks. You demand an absolute eradication of Beck’s claim Van Jones is a communist. You should correct your critique of Beck on Van Jones. There is no barely true. There is only true and untrue. Truth under condition only reveal less than accurate usages of language. Beck thinks Van Jones is a communist because he acts like one and he was part of the organization for a long time. If he doesn’t publicly denounce it, and still acts like one there’s reason to believe he still is one. Barely true? Give me a break. Substantially justifiable. I would think Van Jones would have filed a libel suit if it were actually defensible.

Remember, I don’t necessarily agree with or endorse Beck. I just happened to run across your blog and thought the claims you’ve made are unsubstantiated. It’s practice for me. I could really care less about your white whale, Ahab.

And thanks for correcting my grammar. Those your and you're words slip through occasionally. I'd be grateful if you would start teaching lessons on usage of language as you've demonstrated such a command of language in your blog.

Nice try Anonymous, but Beck changed the MEANING of the words. There is NOTHING indicative of either honesty or questioning in Jefferson's words, "approving the homage of reason." BTW, Beck's translation are not "today's English," they are hiding Beck's homage of faith before reason.

This isn't old English, it's intellectual English which might be why you and Beck are having difficulty grasping Jefferson's meaning.

Anonymous, what part of "they stopped building it during the Civil War" do you not hear Beck saying. He lied. I know Beck's supporters bend over backwards to deny this one and vital fact about your leader, the one telling you how to behave: Beck is a liar, during this speech, again on his show this week just as he has been for the last 19 months.

This deceit was and still is the impetus behind The Glenn Beck Review. Grasp this basic understanding about Glenn Beck, and you'll be on the path to recovery from being a useful tool.

Beck's deceit is persuasive, so persuasive that not even the facts of the matter can dislodge the idea from the minds of his emotionally attached followers that Beck is NOT trustworthy in any sense of the word.

Anonymous said..."Victor, Enlightenment to "brights" like you = being wise in your own eyes. So considering the sum of your knowledge about this vast universe..."

Universe? Physicists are discussing the multiverse and membrane theory these days. My point is that you have no idea what the sum of my knowledge is. I love your anti-intellectualism, straight from the Beckster himself. You learn well, grass hopper.

VictorIs that the best you can do? Knock yourself out? You still fail to address any counter directly. Respond directly to gain respect. Attack the content.

And remember, for all your criticism of Beck supporters, you simply fall on the other side as an anti-beck supporter. You regurgitate what is written elsewhere and rely on it as fact without real analysis. I've shown this in the first challenge you issued to me. Shall I continue?

And as for your claim that Beck is profiting from all these gullible sorts, are you receiving any revenue from this website, which wouldn't exist in the absence of Beck? Seems that if you are, or ever do, you'll also be profiting from what Beck is saying.

Anonymous asked, " are you receiving any revenue from this website, which wouldn't exist in the absence of Beck? Seems that if you are, or ever do, you'll also be profiting from what Beck is saying.

Hypocrisy incarnate."

I monetized this blog for about 24 hours once and decided that I did not want to be making money having ads for causes that I oppose. That would be hypocritical, and I see in often on the Daily Kos and other "liberal" sites.

As far as your other tired point, you have failed to show where Beck was not deceiving his audience on 8/28 three times. Beck's hypocrisy was on display for all who really do have their eyes open.

Speaking of getting paid, if you come back here again, tell if you're on Beck's payroll or not. It seems like it. Seeing someone bend over backwards to defend the morally indefensible and intellectually empty is comical. Humor us some more.

Victor,On your point of integrity about monetizing this site - good for you. At least you were able to arrive at one good conclusion on your own.As far as your old tired point comment. I pointed out numerous conditions demonstrating that Beck didn't deceive the audience because the issues you point out were not relevant and furthermore, were demonstrations that you are splitting hairs. You’re quibbling. Remember, there are multiple claims on your part that he did deceive the audience - claims without irrefutable evidence, thus opinion. Not proof. I have offered evidence that your opinions are not necessarily formed on complete sets of facts and thus subject to re-evaluation in light of new details such as Van Jones ongoing behavior despite the fact he stepped down as leader of a communist organization. This does not demonstrate that he is no longer a communist. Only that he is no longer leader of the communist organization he stepped down from. And he continues to socialize with communists, speak like communists, and talk about changing the whole system in a context outside the energy platform he prominently supports. While, these elements on their own could be refuted easily if Van Jones would simply condemn communism publicly and start speaking about ideas that offer solutions other than ones found primarily in communism or socialism (communism light), he hasn’t. In a court of law the prosecution would object to the statement, the judge would sustain, but the jury would wonder why he hadn’t. And we all know once the point is made, it’s been made. Van Jones’ ongoing behavior alone is damning. And as far as the claims that I have failed to demonstrate on three separate occasions that beck didn’t deceive his audience. In what way? What’s your evidence, proof? Making a claim is not proving it. I can sit here and make a claim that it’s raining outside, but it’s got to be raining outside for my claim to be true and I have to be able to demonstrate it. Your continuous demonstration of lackadaisical thinking and commitment to your cause makes you appear less sincere each and every time you respond. You would be better off not responding than to write the tripe you’ve offered so far as defense!I am working through them one by one. It takes less effort to accuse someone of guilt. All you have to do is make the assertion. But it takes a lot of effort to demonstrate innocence when the accusation is full of half truths and enthymeme. That’s why in a court of law the burden is one the prosecution to prove guilt, not the other way around. However, when there is a cacophony of circumstantial evidence offered that is mixed up with opinion and hearsay it takes a little more effort to parse it out, which is what I am practicing on you. It’s not required I be a Beck supporter to defend him. Just as it is not required I am a believer in the tooth fairy to defend the idea that people believe in the tooth fairy. You are just too lazy with your language and use of evidence to be making such broad claims and allow them to go unchallenged. I’m merely pointing these things out for the folks that will come along and read your blog. If you hadn’t figured it out yet, I am a law student. And this blog is rich with arguable points of evidence. This is merely an opportunity for me to stretch my legs a little outside the normal constraints of the classroom. And while you may find me a reprehensible creature for defending such a wretched individual such as Beck, I would come to your defense as well in the event someone accused you of anything that were less than attestable. I’m fair that way. Continued…

Continued from September 5, 2010.So, to continue, you’ve made claims I see as less than true. I have taken upon myself to examine the claims you've made by looking at the supporting evidence. In the case of Van Jones, the preponderance of evidence is not in favor of his anti-communist position. I didn’t hear you defend anything the Beck critics claimed about Beck’s smear campaign, nor did I see you refute any claims I made. You’ll have to address these points to gain any ground against my analysis. Saying I’m on Beck’s payroll is a rhetorical attack on your critic. And to further the point, whether or not I am on Beck’s payroll doesn’t take away from the credibility of my argument. It is either sound or unsound. This is just another example of your inability to make a sound counter argument against the argument I offered in classifying Van Jones a communist. And remember, it just so happens that Beck and I would probably agree on the status of Van Jones, but it does not classify either Beck or me as mutually supportive. You really have to be more careful Victor. These minor slip ups continue to plague your accusations credibility. Your point about the Washington Monument did not matter. I've shown how your claim about Van Jones is less than accurate. The Jefferson quote is also immaterial because first it says the same thing, phrased differently, and in addition, arguing about God is pointless anyway. In consideration of your ongoing claim that your analysis is spot on without error, it evident the other points you've made deserve scrutiny as well. As we are all subject to verisimilitude. You don’t get a free pass just because you get one right; you have to prove them all continuously.So, I picked one - Van Jones. I didn't spend the time - yet - on the others. I will if you push me. And I do believe you have.And as for your claims that I am an apologist for Beck or that I am on the payroll. You are just full of baseless claims, aren't you? I've stated on numerous posts now that I am not out to support Beck directly. I found your blog by accident and realized there was a potential to argue in defense of someone that had been accused without proper proof. You just got lucky and I’m not going to allow you to just get away with character assassination as a way to refute a good defense of a flawed accusation. You want to make claims about someone, you better be able to prove them unequivocally or you’re just as guilty of the very accusation you make in this instance.You continuously jump to conclusions, don't offer any substantial evidence in favor of your position other than what you can reprint from someone else’s research and creativity, and you continuously attack me rather than the critique of your argument I offer. This is a classic rhetorical method used to try and steal credibility from the opposing viewpoint when an argument has failed to stand up to scrutiny. I'll give you this advice again because every time you dodge the point you lose points. Please address the issues I brought up on Van Jones before moving on to something else to gain credibility. Attempting to diminish my character by claiming I failed without demonstrating why is again jejune and petulant.So, to go over you main points of contention: I’ve addressed your claim that I failed on three attempts to show that Beck didn’t deceive his audience. I’ve declared my intention for defending Beck. This is how you refute an argument, or an accusation. Continued…

Continued from September 5, 2010.You’ll have to spend a little more effort than the twelve to one hundred word responses to address my counter. It simply takes more effort to make a substantiated claim than you have demonstrated so far.

There is something I will tell you about myself. First, I am an agnostic. I’m not to certain I am qualified to say whether or not God exists. This is because there is a great deal of evidence that there might be a god if you ask the question how did it all get started, and there is a lot of good evidence to suggest that it all got started. I also don’t really care whether Beck is successful or not. He’s not paying me. I did not attend the 8/28 Washington rally. I am aware of his positions on many things as anyone who follows the media today would be. I have a liberal arts education. I am a writer for a big company, and of course, a student of law. I work as a volunteer to defend children in the court system. There ya go. That’s all the bio you’re going to get on me. If that’s not enough, too bad. I’ll be back.

Amazing how people will defend their "hero's" flaws instead of owning up to the fact that their "hero" is really a load of crap. By his own standards he is not worth listening to. I don't know how anyone can watch his TV show with all the childish smarminess. His scripted sigh (at least one per show) makes me want to poke my eardrums with a salad fork.

Victor,I want you to pay close attention to this next statement. Since your points of Beck’s deception on the 8/28 rally are he 1) Misquoted Jefferson, 2) Got the history of Washington monument wrong and 3) lied about holding Washington’s inaugural address

Are the only objections (and these are minor objections) to his entire rally you must believe and endorse everything else he said on the entire day otherwise you would have surely noted them.

Let me point out what you missed after just three minutes and twelve seconds of his introductory comments which can be viewed at the following address (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47V-dpiLM78)…As his radio partner Stu introduced Beck at the beginning of the rally and made the statement that Beck brought the chalkboard to the audience in an era of modern electronic devices.****There was no evidence of a chalkboard anywhere****He brings the truth to you [the audience] everyday.****Beck makes no truthful statements ever let alone everyday****Once Beck was onstage he announced that the media had informed him there were over a thousand people there in attendance that day.****There is no proof Beck had any knowledge of the number of audience members in attendance before he stepped out on stage. No member of the media has come forward to admit speaking with Beck about the attendance figures. Furthermore, it is unlikely that every member of the media spoke with Beck that morning, let alone spoke with him about the number of people in attendance**** Beck claimed the reflecting pool held about 200,000 people. ****After studying still pictures posted on Facebook pages, Google searches, and even at Beck’s own website, it is clear there were no people in the reflecting pool****Beck claimed that something beyond imagination was happening.****Imagination is limitless.**** Beck claimed that day that America begins to turn back to God.****There was no evidence then, or thereafter that the continent of America turned at all.****Beck claimed that the country had wandered in darkness for too long and that the country had wondered in darkness for periods from the beginning.****There is no definable measure of too long. It is a well established fact that half of the day is bright. The sun rises everyday.****Beck claimed the story of America was the story of humankind.****The story of America is at best only a chapter in the story of humankind.****Beck claimed God’s chosen people were led by man with stick.****There is no evidence Moses had a stick.****I think you missed a few things Victor. Seems to me your count is way off. I counted nine detectable lies and deceptions in the first three minutes and twelve seconds. I thought you were there.Why is it I can find so many problems with your analysis every time I come back to your blog? I am sorely disappointed in the quality of your reporting. Your sincerity is vanishing more and more each time I look at something else you’ve written.You know Victor, my wife told me this morning she got up early, got out the Oreck, and vacuumed “around” the house. I went outside and found the entire yard, driveway, and patio was filthy. She’s clearly a liar, I’m filing for divorce. I’ll take all my money and she’ll get nothing aaaaahahahahahahaha. Victor Tiffany couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper sack!And that chatter about the Olbermann bit. You’ve got to be kidding right? You’re a coward if you’ll hide behind something like that. I’ll say it again. You make claims of egregious errors that are merely instances of quibbling, or claims that you cannot back up. When challenged you offer no proof, no evidence.I’m glad to see you’re so supportive of the right to free, but wrong, speech.Relevance and proof man! There’s got to be relevance and proof!You have provided the proof. Yes, those three things were misstated. But there’s no relevance to his faith or political message. You’ve clearly got yourself so wrapped up in your controversial opinion of Beck that he could say anything and you would disagree with him. Beck could say the sky was blue or that he took a bath and you’d take issue with those things.

A boastful lie in that context makes Beck a liar, a blow-hard and a hypocrite during that speech. If those are "minor objections" to you, then you have no idea what the meaning of honor is, or integrity, or truth or humility.

It is not that I endorse or oppose Beck's spiritual views that matters in THIS review. It's a free country; I don't CARE about Beck's turn toward faith. Beck actually has more formal education on religion than I do.

Believing or arguing against beliefs is akin to discussing the number of angels on the head of a pin. So long as Beck discussed matters of Truth, such as the Truth in Mormon documents or the Truth of the Bible, this review has no issue with what cannot be dis-proven.

It's when Beck talks about "truth" that does not correspond to the facts that this Review takes issue. Beck ended his show last Friday with the same misquote of Jefferson. Chris Rodda has conveyed that he often ends his show with that misquote of Jefferson.

Chris Rodda is far more prepared to address Beck's bogus spiritual claims, and I have permission to reprint ANYTHING she writes about Beck or Barton or any other historical revisionist that Beck associates himself with. Rodda's website is called Liars for Jesus.

My belief about the rest of his speech can be stated as follows: Ayn Rand and MLK were heard spinning in their graves in the aftermath of it. I believe that to be the Truth. Do you understand why I would believe Rand to be spinning in her grave?

Now do you understand why beliefs and the Truth are not relevant to this Review?

Anonymous, I have agreed with Beck in the past when he was right, so your observation of this Review is ignorant.

Beck said that the Birther idea is dumb.Beck said that the President is wrong to target an American for assassination off the battle field.Beck said that since gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone else, it should not be opposed.

On these three and some other claims, he's right. Nice try, but you're wrong about this Review. I take that back; weak try. Read this blog before making another ignorant comment. Of course, an anonymous comment cannot embarrass you, can it?

I'm intrigued with how most of the arguments against the article focus on the belief that Obama is a liar, which somehow makes it ok for Beck to lie. Strange. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The, "I know you are but what am I", argument seems just a bit childish and ultimately irrelevant.

I'm really growing tired of all the mis information that's being slung about, and the fervor in which a pathetic group devours it all up. You are being lied to and used Tea-baggers... Wake up! Don't base all of your knowledge about the world from one source, and if you don't want to go to all the trouble to be an informed citizen then shut up. Otherwise, you might just show the world what you are... stupid.

This is the best you can come up with? Really, the best you can do? Beck can be strange at times, like most entertainers can be, but he makes so very many excellent points that if anyone with half a mind would consider, they'd stop drinking the Progressive Kool-Aid out there.

Anonymous, many of Beck's "excellent points" are utter hogwash. You need to look into them, research his "excellent points" and realize that a rodeo clown is indeed entertaining, but following a deceitful hypocrite, the point of this post, is "drinking the reactionary Kool-Aid" to use your disgusting, Limbaugh-inspired phrase.

It's the people "with a half mind" who are Beck's and Limbaugh's supporters. They (you) could re-establish the Know Nothing Party. They are the ones who were primarily responsible for stopping the construction of the Washington Monument. Today, know nothings are responsible for stopping/slowing the functioning of our federal government as an entity to solve our many problems. They are Beck's army of the misinformed.

Apparently, you embrace being lied to on a regular basis. How many of Beck's "excellent points" need to be debunked before people realize that they're being misinformed?

The hypocrite argument doesn't always matter. If someone who is guilty of such is guilty, and points out that someone else is doing the same, it doesn't make their point any less valid. Constantly accusing Beck of being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments, or support yours.

It's obvious that Beck's hypocrisies don't matter to his followers. That Beck has no principles doesn't matter. That Beck deceives his followers don't matter. That many conservatives have criticized Beck doesn't matter.

What does invalidate Beck's arguments are the false claims that he often makes. He's an uneducated, yellow propagandist and a deceitful hypocrite.

Yes, the birther idea is dumb. The Republican governor of HA has verified that Obama's legitimate BS in on record there.

It doesn't matter if Beck and I agree for the same reasons. Ron Paul and Barney Frank agree that the U.S. needs to reduced its strategic footprint for different reasons. They don't need to agree on why in order to work together to push the Administration to curb the reach of the American Empire.

Glenn Beck is a Douchbag. My favorite quote of his is: "When it was suggested in an interview that he sometimes sounds like a preacher, he responded, “No. You’ve never met a more flawed guy than me.”

He added later: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”located here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/media/30beck.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=glenn_beck

Nice try, but you didn't state in your article at http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-syracuse/sometimes-beck-is-right-on-the-markwhat your position on this matter is.

You refer to Beck's analysis, President Bush's policy, Obama's policy, Media Matters' document, MSNBC and some unnamed critics. But you never state what you think about the issue.

That's not agreeing with anyone. Even in your reply to these posts you only state that the assassination issue is covered in Amendment 6. These aren't positions Mr. Tiffany. These are instances where you repeat something someone else said, or something that is a matter of fact.

I have yet to read anything you've posted that demonstrates why you agree with Beck on the three items you listed.

And for the record, I had already read that post you listed. Which Is why I decided to ask you to back up your claim. Please control yourself. Calling me ignorant is another further demonstration that you're not really trying to argue the issue. Instead your trying to bully your opinion without support.

Further more, you have not provided any reference to the gay marriage, or birther issues other than to state it here. I'm not able to see anything you've posted in the past that demonstrates you agree with Beck on these issues, let alone that you agree for the same or similar reasons.

Ok, grammar,rhetoric, and logic lesson number 3. I said, "if your conclusions aren't similar enough,..." which implies that I cannot determine what your positions are. Hence, if you would provide a reason for the position on these issues I could see why you agree or disagree with Beck.

I didn't imply any knowledge of your position on these issues.

If you will also notice I made that an if-then type statement. This conditional can only be true if the if part is true, which is what I have asked you to clarify. Why are you so hostile?

Anonymous: "Nice try, but you didn't state in your article at http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-syracuse/sometimes-beck-is-right-on-the-markwhat your position on this matter is."

I wrote clearly that Obama needs to explain this policy to the American people. When I wrote that Beck is on the mark, it meant (I have to actually explain this?) that I agree with him. Beck, the ACLU and I agree that this is un-Constitutional. That is according to the 6th Amendment which I Googled, not anything repeated by someone else.

I'm not going to get into much on the gay marriage issue for reasons that I'm not at liberty to disclose. Beck cited Jefferson for not opposing gay marriage in a conversation with O'Reilly.

RE: Birtherism, I shouldn't have to address that. You seek a reference to where Beck said that the idea was dumb? Google it. Beck was right; it's dumb.

I don't think that I have posted about where I agree with Beck on birtherism or gay marriage, but I do and it does not matter - no matter how much you want to make it so - WHY I do. I'm also not inclined to write a post to this effect since I have other priorities to address, at least this weekend.

Finally, show me where I wrote that you are ignorant. You have me confused with someone who lets their emotions get involved with their ethical and political assertions. Asserting that I called you ignorant is deceitful in itself.

I think you're off topic, purposely distracting (I'm on my computer to write another post about Beck embracing D'Sousa's lies) and petty, nit-picking with the intention of trying to undermine my efforts to expose Beck for what he is: a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan.

Anonymous said..."Nit-Picking? You're calling me nit-picking? Ehhem, I'm terribly disappointed that you think this about me. I'll stop because I know it makes you angry."

Angry. I'm having a gas. Please, by all means, tell us how it wasn't hypocritical for Beck to claim that he held Washington's address in his hands after first saying, "Our sacred honor. It means that you tell the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth."

I'm glad to see you start using the more meaningful terms that apply to structured discussion. In this case you used a classic description of a fallacy for the first time. Too bad you didn't apply it correctly.

You all over the map with these points of contention. I've already made the case that holding those documents meant nothing anyway. You've nit-picked that one to death. This is why calling me a nit-picker for asking you to justify your claim that you agree with Beck is a straw man attack on your part. This isn't about me, and it isn't about Beck. It's about your incoherent arguments and why they don't stand up to scrutiny.

First, I showed where you claimed I was ignorant. I think you should address the fact that you claimed that you didn't. So, that makes you either a liar or incompetent. Simple either or statement. You challenged, I demonstrated. The claim that you're either incompetent or a liar further demonstrates that you either a) lied about the fact you didn't remember calling me ignorant, or b) are incompetent because you aren't aware of your own posts. Not an ad hominem attack unless you consider any challenge of an argument or statement to be ad hominem. A person can be wrong, assessed with a label that classifies that person without being attacked personally. I didn't attack you personally, which is the nature of an ad hominem. You really must start learning to use that dictionary thingy or that Google thingy you pointed out to me. Not addressing it again after I've brought it up this time only serves to demonstrate you cannot defend it.

And further, your statement that you agree with Beck on the three areas you pointed out are suspect. I've been looking into what you've said and compared it against what Beck said. They don't always match up, and they aren't always as crystal clear as you would have us believe. I haven't yet addressed those points because I was too busy doing other things this weekend that were way more important than arguing with you too. But, to comment on your accusation that I am trying to undermine your effort to expose Beck as a liar, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. Would it matter? After all, if I can show that you aren't being honest, or objective, or unbiased that would only serve the greater good wouldn't it? If you write it down and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it's you problem not mine. You're the one who has decided to go out on a limb. Remember Dan Rather?On the matter of the sixth amendment. You made your claims at that web site you pointed out, and I read all of that over two weeks ago when you first tried to use that as a defense for agreeing with Beck. But there's something missing there. I'll tell you about it when I post again.As for the other examples, gay marriage, and birthers, there is also some discrepancies about what you say you agree with versus what Beck says his views are. That little thing about getting to the same answer the same way is still important, and you haven't yet proven to me that you actually agree with Beck, as much as you just happen to hold a similar point of view - but on closer inspection, it's not quite the same point of view. You even said so yourself.

This post is not about birtherism, which Beck and I agree is "dumb," not about gay marriage, which Beck and I agree should not be opposed or about assassinating Americans abroad suspected of involvement in terrorism which Beck and I both oppose on Constitutional grounds.

It's about Beck lying in his speech on 8-28 three times, three different deceptions, after first saying, "Our sacred honor. It means that you tell the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth."

It's election season, and frankly I have more important things to do then discuss the differences of the issues of agreement with a man who is pulling the wool over American's eyes about virtually every subject he addresses.

This means that you can come back here and post comments all you want. For the next six weeks you're going to either not have your comments posted or they will be posted without comment.

Here and elsewhere I've proven that Beck is a liar. Here and elsewhere I've proven that Beck is a hypocrite. Elsewhere I've demonstrated to anyone who knows much at all about civics that Beck isn't qualified to be doing his job on Fox, that Beck is just an extremely gifted con man. Look in the mirror; he has you hoodwinked.

You've quibbled over Beck's language where it didn't matter. You've said you agree with Beck when in fact you don't. You've received criticism for not scrutinizing Obama, and then defended this by claiming this is the Glenn Beck review. But on two separate occasions that I've found, you have criticized Obama and then D'Souza. Which is it, a commentary only about Beck or one not only about Beck - please make up your mind and let us all know so we can follow your post. You're not doing a very good job of adhering to what you claim, and further demonstrating that you are a hypocrite as well. This is my problem with you; you don't even follow your own rules and guidelines. Why should I believe you?

And as far as Beck's qualifications, I believe his primary function is to make money for Fox which he seems to be doing very well. You sir, are not qualified to do this job because you make too many mistakes of analysis. For example, I am not in the tank for Beck - yet you seem to keep repeating that I am. I don't think gay marriage should be allowed. I don't think ordering the assassination of a known enemy - citizen or not - is a clearly prohibited action of the Commander in Chief. And I don't think the birther thing is silly. I have to prove my eligibility all the time. After going through numerous security screenings and vetting processes to hold positions in the military, local government, and my current occupation, I think anyone ought to be rejected or not providing these basic proofs of citizenship and legitimacy. Why shouldn't he have to do so as well?

Don't speak about things you do not know of Mr. Tiffany. You don't know anything about me, my thoughts on Beck, or political issues unless I tell you. You are quick to jump to conclusions. And in this story you exaggerated the truth to make a headline. This is what I have taken issue with, not to support Beck's rally. To demonstrate how incompetent and dishonest you been. I've been arguing how distorted your interpretation was, not what Beck's rally was about. A point you don't seem to get - that you didn't get it right in the first place and have made other errors as well, contradicting the very types of axioms you want beck held to. That free speech thing is great, but it works both ways. And I am saying you lied which makes you a liar, you do the same things in distorting the story, which makes you a charlatan, and want to be excused from scrutiny which makes you a hypocrite as well. You're no better than Beck.

As far your comment about posting here - it's unclear. Do you mean to deprive me of my freedom of speech? A principle you seem to hold so dear that you actually reprint the idea on your website. You just don't get it. Beck's not fooling me; he's making you the same thing he is.

Anonymous said..."You're not doing a very good job of adhering to what you claim, and further demonstrating that you are a hypocrite as well."

I address Obama (on other posts) in direct response to what Beck has said. One example is when I (damn this is getting old) agreed with Beck about the President using his power to target an American suspected of involvement in terrorism to assassinate him.

Nice try, anonymous. You want to address me by my name, maybe you'd be further from having a double standard by using your real name next time Barry.

So, you won't even honor your own policy of allowing people to post anonymously - criticizing me for remaining anonymous instead of addressing the points. Talk about getting old! You want to know who I am? Take out the option. And Barry? How clever. Some kind of comparison to Goldwater? What in the world is that supposed to be? Some kind of dig on Obama, or his father? Or maybe it's to Barry the St. Bernard? Your childish nature comes out in every post you make. Why can't you defend your positions without resorting to pejoratives? Not ignoring the opportunities for name calling demonstrates someone of small stature and your insults further demonstrate your inability to argue the issue. My posts serve to show you cannot make this case adequately without resorting to the dirty pool of name calling, red herring, straw man, ad hominem, and tu quoque, etc.

You claimed that you don't address Obama here in this post. Yet you did on the presidential assassination issue - seems like that wasn’t relevant to the Beck comments. As for the Dinesh D'Souza article, foul. If you’re going to hind behind the fact that Beck had him on his show to justify why you critiqued D'Souza when you made the statements that you don't do anyone else besides Beck at this website in this very post it makes you a liar over and over again.

You don't get it buddy. You do the same thing as Beck and don't want to be held to the same standard you hold Beck to.

You certainly don't sound like you're having fun anymore Mr. Tiffany. In fact, you sound desperate for the scrutiny to stop.

You know, when I was in the military I found out how one black kid was taking advantage of another black kid who was younger, dumber, and timid. The offender was stealing from the younger kid, cajoling him to stand his watches, and beating him up in the shower. Guess who the assailant accused of being a racist when I brought this to the judicial review board. Yep, that's right, yours truly. Of course, the captain presiding over the hearing realized this was a ploy on the defendant's part to draw attention away from himself and put it on me. Did I like the service member who was being attacked? Not particularly. I didn't know him. Did I like the service member who was doing the attacking? Not particularly. However, he appeared to be more than apt to cause trouble the few times I had encounters with him before. Does that make me a racist? Well, let's just say I was begging him to try and charge me because that was a case I would have loved to defend! Just like this one.

This example is just like you Mr. Tiffany. You keep shifting in your seat trying to get the pressure off you. It's not working. You should have let this matter go. I would have posted a few things and been gone. But you kept on antagonizing the issue. You want me to stop? Stop replying. I'll make my final case and that will be it. If you allow this post to remain on the web, anyone who comes after will make up their own mind. I will of course have a copy in my records - just for fun...

You accused Beck of deceiving his audience. I’ve cross-examined this and shown how it is not an accurate portrayal of what happened. That’s all. In the process I’ve shown how you deceive people in much the same manner. You use language in an overstated way to agitate the context. This in turn, by your very own definition is a lie Mr. Tiffany. Defend that!

Spine-free anonymous said..."So, you won't even honor your own policy of allowing people to post anonymously - criticizing me for remaining anonymous instead of addressing the points....You want to know who I am? Take out the option."

It's not my policy. I use this free blogger service, and I've addressed your points over and over. Beck lied three times. Your biased assimilation will not allow you grasp this, but I rested my case above.

You want me to remove the option of anonymous replies? I thought the far right was opposed to "nanny" operations, or is that just with the state?

Above, anonymous said..."Don't feed the trolls."

I'm done feeding you. You're defending America's deceiver-in-chief and fear-monger-in-chief. These are not labels I gave Beck, but I certainly agree with them. There are 150 other posts on this blog which in total demonstrate quite clearly that Beck still has a long way to go on his path of being a "recovering dirt bag."

If I were alone in the accusations that I'm making of Mr. Beck, you'd have me on the defensive. As it is, you need to explain your moral turpitude of defending a liar, a hypocrite and an uneducated charlatan.

Explain your emotional (irrational) bond with Mr. Beck. Or is he paying you? Explain that, and then you can have the last word in this exchange. Try to defend Beck's deceit and hypocrisy again, and I will continue to mock you as an ethical waste case, an example of why lawyers are so universally despised.

The troll comment was posted by someone else and is a lost post. You keep using pejoratives against me in an attempt to make points on this argument. You lose my sympathy to listen to your claims when you do. Do you realize that your very character reflects as much on your argument? You not spent much time looking at the rhetorical side of this have you? You should learn how to frame your comments to get sympathy from your reader. You have to get your audience on your side before you can sell them. You aren't doing it well. You never redress the comments, you spew hateful comments, insult, chide, ridicule. Do you think this works? Make a sound argument and I'll listen. Keep on doing the same and I'll keep on coming back to make you look silly. Remember, I've got nothing to lose. On the other hand, you do.

Lay off the name calling Mr. Tiffany. Is still makes you look small. Calling someone a douche bag or a dirt bag doesn't serve any purpose in a critique on the merits of his activities. It's too much like pop culture. And you are undermining your own work by doing so. Stick to arguments you can prove, use appropriate language. Your only making yourself look peevish.

And finally, shut up! You rested your case 15 or 20 posts ago. Honor yourself by remaining silent. You can't even keep your own word. Why should I believe or consider anything you write if I cannot depend on you to do what you say you will do. This is why I take3 issue with your honor sir. You've got none!

And don't come back with some whippish little strike on my anonymity. You've made your position known that you don't like it when people remain anonymous. We get it. But that doesn't change the fact that you are a bad journalist. My identity will not change that Victor Scott, it will not change a thing about your character. David Coxe?

And why do you constantly come to the accusation that I am either being paid by Beck or that I am loyal to him? Whose paying you to smear him? Why are you so committed to the cause of destroying him? Is it schadenfreude? You jump to conclusions without evidence. You espouse theory as fact. This is why I attack what you say. It's too easy to show your incompetence each time I write back to you.

For the last time. I am not committed to Beck. I am committed to showing you are as bad as he is. My motive is the fact that you argue against indefensible positions. This is practice for me. Nothing more! You make it possible for me to sharpen my skills, nothing more. You are like a tackle dummy to me Mr Victor. This is all meaningless, and you - like an inflatable Bozo punching clown that gets smacked down to the floor - pop back up for another round. You're not smart enough to realize that I've been using you like this even though I've said so numerous times.

If you actually paid attention to Mr. Beck, you'd know that he calls himself a recovering dirt bag. His phrase, not mine. (I just happen to agree and point out that he still has a lot of recovery to go. He can start by stop, deceitfully misquoting Thomas Jefferson for his own reactionary purposes.)

Sure, anything that spineless wonders demand. I can't help but wonder if you go to the Glenn Beck Report, the Conservatives Against Beck site, StopBeck.com, the Beck-is-an-Idiot blog, etc. etc. etc. and tell them to shut up. I consider a great complement that you attempt to silence me with your arrogant demand. It tells me that what I'm doing is getting under your skin. Troll!

Anonymous said..."And why do you constantly come to the accusation that I am either being paid by Beck or that I am loyal to him?"

I'd call it more a conclusion that you can't disprove, than an "accusation." What is the source of your passionate and persistent defense of his indefensible and reprehensible lies? Surely you have better things to do with your time than to defend the lack of honor of someone you could care less about.

"Whose paying you to smear him?" 1) There are no smears here. Beck lied three times during this speech, and it's well proven. I don't need to keep going over this. 2) I wish I had a benefactor. I could do such a more thorough job at this if I didn't have a full time job, a home to keep up, a wife to attend to, a garden and a large lawn to keep up.

Troll: from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)"someone who posts ... extraneous ... messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response...."

I've stated my motive over and over. It is to show how you hold a double standard. You apparently don't read the posts closely enough to get the jist of what's been said. This ongoing conversation adds to the evidence that you simply aren't very smart or you don't pay attention. I can't decide. To this last matter you haven't added any content to the discussion. And to this end is my point. You aren't very good at reporting or commenting. Your opinions are easily marginalized and you can't post sequentially relevant comments. Each time I get you to post that doesn't directly address an of contention further demonstrates how incompetent your blog is. When the web crawlers get a hold of this blog the relevant context will show how little you address issues and engage in ad hominem attack. You can't be taken seriously because you can't be serious. I keep telling you that you are my pet project. I haven't taken up any issue to defend Beck other than to critique your analysis on merit. I've shown how your critique isn't valid because there are holes in it. That's all an advocate has to do. He doesn't have to subscribe to an idea to defend it. You don't seem to get the idea that I found your post on Beck's 8/28 rally suspect and focused on that. I keep telling you this but you don't get it. This is why you've become my target, because your a weak bloviator. Each time you respond with your standard ad hominem and skirt the real issues you chisel in another point against yourself. And no one is paying attention to you except me. This seems to demonstrate a destructive relationship between you and I: I challenge your comments and you tell me that I am sub-par. I'm challenging you to engage in a real debate and you just restate Beck is a liar, a charlatan, and a whatever else is in your standard byline. You're going to have to work harder than that to convince me. I've stated my objections to your arguments against Beck and you offer no directly relevant counter arguments. This makes you a bad conversationalist among other things. You could dig in here to really show why you've got an informed opinion but you just vacillate. We've posted over a hundred comments and you've offered nothing to persuade me that you could definitively prove that your opinions are substantive. All you do is accuse, slander, and repeat that same old rhetoric.

No one cares about your garden, or your home, or your job. The mere fact that you enumerate these things demonstrates that you're attempting to add legitimacy to your struggle. It's an artificial attempt to make some kind of case that you've got to trumpet for this cause.

Pejorative - troll? Why don't you address the issues instead of name calling? You're citing the definition of Troll from wikipedia demonstrates further that you didn't read the definition carefully. I'm certainly not trying to elicit an emotional response from you... A reasoned response certainly. If you would only read what I've said. You continue to prove my point each time you reply.

And To answer your diatribe, "why should I keep feeding you?"

Seems that I am the only one offering any real comments to you. Your October blogs to date only have a total of 11 comments. No one is listening to you. If it weren't for me you would be lonely, Victor.

And to wit, this is practice for me. My job is arguing. I seem to have to say that again and again to you. You know the sophists got a bad reputation because they practiced the art of discounting the oppositions arguments - by any means. That's what lawyers do. They get the other side to show an inconsistency which destroys their argument. I really shouldn't have to point this out after I've said as much in the past. You just don't get it. This is a game and I am making you run the court each time I post. I've stated my motive, my technique, and my strategy. You just don't understand what the points are.

Beck doesn't refer to himself as a douche bag - you did. And anyone with any sense of class or a modicum of decency never resorts to this type of slander Mr. Victor. It's low class. And you're showing us which class you belong to each time you engage in this type of attack. Do yourself a favor and try to understand the class stratification of your target audience. If you act like a low class loud mouth, all you'll get for an audience are low class people. This isn't rocket science.

You know the anonymous attacks are really getting old. I'm not going to reveal who I am to you because it doesn't matter. You restate this every third post or so and it's just a waste of time and disk space.

If identity mattered no one would quote those famous things who cannot be attributed to anyone.

For example, "No man is more unhappy than the one who is never in adversity; the greatest affliction of life is never to be afflicted." is an anonymous quote. It's true but no one knows who said it first. It's still true. But you seem to be in the ilk of people who would condemn a true statement if it came from someone who you dislike or fear.

Or a something like " a man who controls himself faces few obstacles in the world." That's one that someone who is otherwise a reprehensible person. But it's none-the-true.

So, use up your credibility on whining about my anonymity. No one who reads this later will care who I am. And they'll certainly know who you are...

There are not holes in my claims. I've proven that Beck lied three times. 1) Beck put words to President Jefferson's pen that Jefferson didn't write. It's a lie that Beck's been using for years, and he repeated that lie during his speech. 2) The Washington Monument wasn't stopped because of the Civil War. Beck lied about that. 3) Beck did not hold Washington's inaugural address in his hands. He has since admitted to that fabrication.

Looking at the length of your comment with its extraneous words, an objective observer would think you to be the bloviator.

I accept your challenge. Find my e-mail address. Copy and paste your comments and my responses to them. (There are too many anonymous comments here to know who you are since you're too spineless to use your own name.) C & P them all into an e-mail to me, and I will turn that e-mail into a post where we can continue.

Otherwise, as I wrote wayyyyy up there, I've made my case. I've proven that Beck did not "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" which therefore makes him a hypocrite--AGAIN!

I've argued for the restatement of Beck's Jefferson quote and you never addressed the counter point.

I've commented on the issue of the Washington Monument. You never responded or rebuked the points.

I've commented on the Inaugural Address and you've never responded...

You've merely restated what you said before. You have to counter the rebuttal for it to count Victor.

And you cannot own up to your own words. Rest your case means stop. when you did that you committed to halting. This is why your dishonest.

I'll not send you an email so you can try and identify me.

You can figure out which of the comments are mine. They're the only ones with any content or structure.

And get off the anonymity. You cannot get me to reveal my identity Victor. No way. I like my privacy.

You can respond here. It wouldn't take that much effort - and it's the only way you can redeem yourself for the negligence you've demonstrated so far.

Also, you know every time you reuse some statement I've made (i.e., the bloviator remark) it makes you look even worse than you already do. You just don't understand how to present an argument or engage a dialogue.

This debate is on my terms Victor. I pitch the ball and you swing... You've got nothing until I decided to give it to you and then you swing too early...

Make you case against my comments in coherent responses that address the counter I've provided and show you've got something worth saying. To date everything you post is a restatement of something someone else has stated. You're more a plagiarist than anything else.

Anonymous said..."I've argued for the restatement of Beck's Jefferson quote and you never addressed the counter point.I've commented on the issue of the Washington Monument. You never responded or rebuked the points.And you cannot own up to your own words. Rest your case means stop. when you did that you committed to halting. This is why your dishonest."

It seems that you have me painted into the corner. If I write anything that demonstrates the vacuity of your arguments, then I'm going against my word of having rested my case. By your "logic," I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. That's why I want you to extract your comments and my replies and send them to me, but you're (note spelling "legal eagle") too spineless to ID yourself.

That you seem to think that someone can trace an email address to an identity seems technologically unsophisticated at best. Google, Yahoo and other services offer anonymous e-mail addresses. That's not too much to ask of you.

Your idea that your comments are "the only ones with any content or structure" is arrogant at best, but that is starting to show in other ways.

This debate is not on your terms. I've made my case: Beck lied at least three times during this speech. Your legalistic wrangling hasn't changed that fact.

Now you're going to come back here and have another hissy fit, and that's fine, but your emotions are showing.

No one I've read had picked up on Beck's misquote of Jefferson except the website that I link to. I found that because I did research to see if Jefferson actually wrote something that stupid sounding. He did not; Beck did. As a Jeffersonian, that was a huge relief.

Check it out for yourself: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_quote_by_Thomas_Jefferson_about_asking_honest_questions

Every time Beck misquotes President Jefferson, he's telling a little lie. Rationalize it all you want; it's a lie.

When I read your baseless attacks, you come off as more desperate than anything else. Try as you might, you cannot protect the honor of someone who doesn't have any.

I'm not collecting these comments for your convenience. You had you chance to deal with them in context at the time I posted. And you still have the entire collection right there in front of you. If you cannot distinguish between the comments of substance and the one or two others made without relevant points that only further demonstrates your either lazy or don't read well. You certainly don't use the language very well. Extraneous? Please! Get a dictionary and look it up before you use it. It might sound cool in prose but it doesn't apply in context. You're digging your own hole each time you open your yap. In the context of this discussion and the type of topics we've been on, extraneous is an extraneous word.

I would like to argue the issue, not exchange insults. But you resort to insults each time. You never counter. Your style comes through everywhere else you show up. Same style, punch at the topic and then insult. Never engage in a discussion on the issue. You make yourself look like an imbecile each time you respond with insults and avoid the issue.

I didn't paint you into the corner - you did. Don't try and make this about what I said. Dishonesty incarnate on your part again.

Why do you have to resort to the name calling? Spineless? Whatever! I've made my point about anonymity before. You still aren't arguing the issue. But I suppose that's the way they teach you to do it over there in Ithaca - attack the character not the issue.

As far as email tracing, don't be so naive. IP address logging is a real thing buddy. No matter how good your firewall is. IP masking stopped working about 7 years ago. I don't trust you and I have no intention of telling you who I am or assisting you with recollecting this series of comments. You have to do the work yourself. You should have already done it in the first place. None of you blogs, or your follow ups are original. You just comment on what's already been commented on. I can go to media matters for myself.

And you are actually going to try and get away with quoting a wikianswer article here in defense of your analysis on the Jefferson quote? Are you serious? For all anyone knows you wrote that wikianswer. I already addressed the Jefferson quote. You should be able to find it because no one else has posted anything on this thread!

Argue the issue, stop the insults. Don't bother wasting space about the identity. You're stalling and trying to make a straw man out of it. Show yourself a little respect.

The issues I've challenged you on are the three claims about the lies on 8/28, the Van Jones topic, your claims that you actually agree with Beck. They're all here, right above this quote. That fancy search tool will make it easy to find them all.

And one more time - I am not protecting Beck. I am taking issue with your analysis. How many times do I have to say that before you understand? Beck doesn't pay me. I don't know Beck. Beck doesn't know me.

And baseless? Do you actually read the posts? The webcrawlers will tell. The webcrawlers will tell.

I think I just realized why you don't address the issues directly. It's because you know you can't win on the issues. I've given you the list. IF you will not respond to them succinctly you just proven my point.

Assuming that you're the same "anonymous" person who has been addressing me by name up until now, your hypocrisy is showing here. From get go your wrote: "Many of your sentences are run on. You jump from point to point without justifying any of your claims with substantial evidence or tying together the ideas in your paragraphs. If you're going to post this type of critique you should try to format and revise it well enough for anyone to read. I've studied a great deal of logic, philosophy, and rhetoric as well as attended courses at one of the few diplomacy schools in America. The character of your writing is "jejune" and "petulant"."

That is pretty damn adversarial.

My writing is not great; I'm well aware of this. I had a proof-reader when I started, but she got too busy with life to continue bothering with taking down Mr. Beck.

You'll also notice, on advice of a lawyer, that you must now become a member of this blog to comment.

Finally, I don't need to "argue the points." I've made my case. This lawyer also noted privately thus far, "there's nothing wrong with your post." You don't care that Beck routinely deceives his followers and neither do they. You seem way too interested in undermining my arguments to be "disinterested."